## Facts

- Bruce A. Gazvoda and Sabrina Wright cohabited for about 16 years and had one child.
- When they began living together, their cumulative assets were under $2,000; by the end of the relationship, the cumulative assets were about $1 million.
- Bruce obtained an electrician’s license and built his company, Electric Services.
- For the first four years of cohabitation, Sabrina worked long days with Bruce at job sites and handled administrative tasks for Electric Services.
- Sabrina received no direct pay for her work for Electric Services.
- After their child was born, Sabrina primarily cared for the child and maintained the household.
- Bruce and Sabrina used a joint bank account into which business income was deposited, and they referred to the property they accumulated as “ours.”
- When the child was about two years old, Bruce formed Bruce’s Investment Properties to manage rental properties he had built.
- Sabrina, without pay, managed and maintained the rental properties while continuing to handle childcare and household responsibilities.
- In 2004, Sabrina left Bruce. Bruce filed a declaratory action seeking a determination of the parties’ interests in property acquired during the relationship.
- Sabrina counterclaimed, seeking recovery based on implied contract and unjust enrichment.
- At trial, Sabrina offered vocational testimony valuing her unpaid services during the relationship at about $472,000.
- The trial court entered judgment for Sabrina and ordered Bruce to pay $250,000 on an unjust-enrichment theory.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by awarding unjust-enrichment restitution to an unmarried cohabitant for substantial unpaid work that benefited the other partner’s businesses and property.
2. Whether the evidence supported the finding that Sabrina conferred a measurable benefit on Bruce that was not fully compensated by the parties’ shared living arrangement and joint use of funds.
3. Whether the amount awarded ($250,000) was clearly erroneous in light of the evidence, including testimony valuing Sabrina’s services.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held that unjust enrichment can apply between unmarried cohabitants when one party confers a measurable, non-gratuitous benefit that the other knowingly accepts and retains under unfair circumstances.
- The court concluded that the record supported the trial court’s finding that Sabrina provided extensive unpaid labor for Electric Services and the rental-property business and that Bruce benefited from and accepted those services.
- The court rejected Bruce’s argument that Sabrina was fully compensated merely because she lived with him and had access to a joint account used for household and relationship expenses.
- The court held that the $250,000 award was within the range of the evidence and not clearly erroneous, given the long period of uncompensated work and the substantial growth in accumulated assets.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment (quasi-contract) may provide restitution when one party confers a measurable benefit on another, the recipient appreciates and accepts the benefit, and retention without payment would be unfair.
- Cohabitation without marriage does not automatically bar contract-based or restitution-based claims; the claim must be evaluated under ordinary principles of contract or equity rather than domestic-relations property rules.
- A restitution award in this setting is not a division of “marital property” and does not create a marriage-like property regime; it compensates for benefits conferred and retained without fair payment.
- In reviewing a bench trial judgment for unjust enrichment, an appellate court defers to trial-court factfinding and will not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility; the question is whether the judgment is clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

Because Sabrina provided years of unpaid labor that materially benefited Bruce’s electrical business and rental-property operations, and because the evidence supported a finding that Bruce retained the value of those services without fair compensation, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the $250,000 unjust-enrichment judgment in her favor.


Gazvoda v. Wright, 2007 WL 2284722 (2007)